On reflection, I think we're fine. I'm going to wait for comments, but then I'll file a Motion and add the following to my judgement:
The way the Duel is written, "remit" could mean just "quit" but also "return the funds" (two very different meanings of the word "remit"). So it's a perfectly valid reading to say that the first person is supposed to pay the second person to enter the Duel, and the second person forfeits by "remitting" the payment to the first person. Given that there's two valid alternate readings, and that "pay" requires an explicit recipient, it's too confusing to be explicitly specified. "Spend" on the other hand, defers us directly to common definitions So "spend" explicitly refers us to common definitions (and doesn't have a double-reading or explicitly require a recipient). On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > o: "cool cool, everything is completely fine *cries*" > > I think if that rule were interpreted as written: to ban any action not > explicitly specified, it would break a whole lot of things. > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Unfortunately for the cleverness of the rule, I find that Rule 2166 is > > > explicit in defining “pay” as transferring “to another entity”. So, “to > > > pay” without a recipient isn’t a mechanism explicitly defined in the > > > rules. This may have worked in the past, but R2125 has a relatively new > > > strict requirement for mechanism specification: > > > > > > > A Restricted Action CAN only be performed as described by the > > > > Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the > > > > Rules for performing the given action. > > > > > > And so to say you can do something by “paying” for it without adding a > > > recipient does not explicitly specify a mechanism to this new standard. > > > So as the Caller states, it is TRUE that it is impossible to issue > > > writs. TRUE. > > > > Fun question: > > > > Did the change in strictness in R2125 (adopted Oct 22) break everything > > that uses "spend" because "spend" is still not defined? > > > > > > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
